Positron differential studies: Comparison to photoionization

A. C. F. Santos, R. D. DuBois, and S. T. Manson

Citation: AIP Conf. Proc. 1525, 441 (2013); doi: 10.1063/1.4802366
View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4802366
View Table of Contents: http://proceedings.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=APCPCS&Volume=1525&Issue=1
Published by the American Institute of Physics.

Additional information on AIP Conf. Proc.

Journal Homepage: http://proceedings.aip.org/
Journal Information: http://proceedings.aip.org/about/about_the_proceedings
Top downloads: http://proceedings.aip.org/dbt/most_downloaded.jsp?KEY=APCPCS
Information for Authors: http://proceedings.aip.org/authors/information_for_authors

Downloaded 25 Apr 2013 to 146.164.37.174. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://proceedings.aip.org/about/rights_permissions

Positron Differential Studies: Comparison To

Photoionization
A. C. F. Santos1, R. D. DuBois2 and S. T. Manson3
1

Instituto de Fsica, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, PO 68528, 21941-972 Rio de Janeiro,RJ, Brazil
2
Department of Physics, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO, 65409, USA
3
Department of Physics & Astronomy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA

Abstract. In this paper we study the transition from adiabatic to sudden double ionization of valence electrons of atoms
by positron impact. Double ionization by a charged particle is usually represented in terms of the shake-off (SO), twostep 1 (TS-1), and two-step 2 (TS-2) mechanisms. The relative contribution of those mechanisms is determined for
double ionization of neon. For argon, the SO mechanism is shown to fit the electron impact data but not the positron
data. Different post-collision interactions for positron and electron impact or the transition from the adiabatic (TS-1) to
the sudden regime (SO) which could imply different interferences between single- and double-interaction mechanisms
are possible interpretations for the observed differences.
Keywords: positron impact, multiple ionization
PACS: 34.80.Do,32.80.Fb

electron may lead to a rapid removal of the primary

electron. The SO mechanism is first order in the
projectile-target interaction, where only one target
electron takes momentum in a direct ionizing collision
with the projectile and is emitted in the direction of the
transferred momentum. It has been shown [6,7] that
the energy and the energy excess above threshold are
important factors in determining whether the
ionization is adiabatic or sudden. On the other hand,
the adiabatic regime is described by the two-step 1
(TS-1) mechanism, which describes the correlated
dynamics of the two electrons as they leave the target.
It is also a first order process in the projectile-target
interaction, in which the incident projectile strikes a
target electron that in turn ionizes the second electron
in a binary collision on its way out of the atom in a
(e,2e)-like process. Finally, there is the two-step 2
(TS-2) mechanism, a second order process in which
the projectile interacts and ionizes each target electron
sequentially.
The TS-1 and SO contributions to the double
ionization can be separated by exploiting their very
different classical and quantum natures [8]. Due to its
quasiclassical nature, TS-1 can be calculated or
estimated since it does not contain any contribution of
SO. For projectiles velocities much larger than the
orbital electron velocities, positrons and electrons have
the same single ionization cross sections. On the other

INTRODUCTION
When a positron hits an atom, it may knock off the
target electron. By comparing positron, photon, and
electron impact data, it is possible to achieve insights
and deeper understanding of matter-matter interaction
dynamics and mechanisms. Up to a decade ago, most
of the experimental studies for positron impact have
been limited to measurements of integral cross
sections. The primary reason for this is associated
with the low-intensity positron beams that are
available. This results in extremely weak differential
signal rates and precludes using standard experimental
methods and techniques [1-5].
The subject of double ionization of atoms is a
difficult one. The moieties may pass through an
intermediate state in which all constituents strongly
interact via the Coulomb potential. The mechanism for
double ionization is the (single or double) coulomb
interaction of the projectile with the target. These are
separable because the cross sections have different
energy dependences so they can, in principle, be
untangled from one another. After the initial
momentum transfer from the projectile to one or more
target electrons, three different mechanisms are
usually taken into account: The shake-off (SO)
mechanism (also called sudden removal) accounts for
the fact that the momentum transferred to the target

Application of Accelerators in Research and Industry

AIP Conf. Proc. 1525, 441-443 (2013); doi: 10.1063/1.4802366
2013 AIP Publishing LLC 978-0-7354-1148-7/$30.00

441
Downloaded 25 Apr 2013 to 146.164.37.174. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://proceedings.aip.org/about/rights_permissions

hand, there are observed differences between double

ionization for e+/e- impact even at 1 keV. It was first
pointed out by McGuire [9] that interference between
TS-2 and SO mechanisms may give rise to a
contribution to transition amplitude proportional to q3.
This accounted for the observed differences. Although
other explanations have been suggested, interference
between
the
singleand
double-interaction
mechanisms have generally been used to explain the
differences between positron and electron impact.
Here, we investigate and provide more insight into the
single interaction mechanism by separating the TS-1
and SO mechanisms. Double ionization of atoms

PSO (H )

the inelastic collisions of fast charged particles and

photoionization/photoexcitation is well established,
see for instance [1-5] and references therein. The link
is the impulse experienced by the target electron in a
collision with the incident charged particle; this is
analogous to a photon pulse. However, a fundamental
distinction exists between ionization resulting from
charged particle-atom collision and photoionization.
The total photon energy is absorbed in such an
interaction (except in the case of Compton scattering)
whereas the charged particle transfers only a portion of
its energy.
The difference in energy minus the
ionization potential, 'E - IP, between the incident
projectile and the scattered projectile is the energy
imparted to the ionized electron.
As stated earlier, double ionization of atoms by
photons is frequently considered in terms of two-first
order mechanisms, SO and TS-1. Hence, the single
and double ionization cross section by photon impact
can be written as

R2 (hQ )V hv

(2)

where me the electron mass, IB is the binding energy of

the shaken electron (21.6 eV and 15.8 eV for neon and
argon, respectively), r is the radius of the electron shell
(0.51 and 0.67 for neon and argon, respectively),
and H ='E-I2+ is the excess ionization energy shared
by the two ejected electrons, where 'E is the imparted
energy. The Thomas model will be valid if the
adiabaticity parameter toIB/ is much less than unity
[10]. For neon and argon this corresponds to excess
energies much larger than 32 eV and 15 eV,
respectively.
Using this formula, one can estimate the relative
importance of SO to the electron impact double
ionization cross sections. Fig. 1 shows experimental
electron impact double-to-single ionization ratios
compared to similar data for photon ionization [11]
and L-shell shake-off probabilities obtained using Eq.
2. Here, PSO('E) is obtained by normalizing Eq. 2 to
the data in the high energy regime.

by positrons and electrons and their

comparison to photoionizationThe link between

V hv2

 me r 2 I B2
PSO (f) exp
2
2! H

adiabatic regime

Ne

2p 2s

pp

SO

-1

R2

10

TS-1

-2

10

sudden regime

-3

10

(1)

100

200
300
400
Energy-Loss (eV)

500

600

700

FIGURE 1. Fraction of double ionization cross sections of

neon as a function of the projectile energy loss. Data are for
750 eV electrons scattered into vertical and horizontal angles
between 0 and 10o. Closed squares, electron impact [14]
dashed dotted line, photoionization ref. [11]  dotted-blue
line, estimated TS-1 fraction obtained from single ionization
of Ar+ from ref. [10] normalized to the electron impact data
at 46 eV; full red line, the Thomas model [10] (Eq. 2). The
vertical lines show the regions of validity of sudden and
adiabatic processes, and the arrows shows the average orbital
kinetic energies of the 2p and 2s electrons of neon.

where R2(hQ) is the measured ratio of double to single

ionization by photon impact and it is a measure of the
importance of the sum of the first-order processes,
shake-off (sudden removal) and TS-1 (adiabatic
removal).
Thomas reported a model based on timedependent quantum mechanics for determining the
crossover from the adiabatic to the sudden (SO)
regime in double ionization of atoms [10]. This model,
which has been used to describe shake processes near
threshold, produces a simple expression for the energy
dependence which depends only on the radius and
binding energy of the shaken electron. In this model,
the probability PSO is expressed as

The Thomas model, which neglects the strong

energy dependence of the TS-1 contribution near
threshold, predicts a rise to an asymptotic limit. The
relatively little difference between the model and the
data implies that the TS-2 mechanism is minimal for
these electron impact data which are limited to
scattering angles less than 10 degrees. In addition,
Samson showed that the TS-1 contribution can be

442
Downloaded 25 Apr 2013 to 146.164.37.174. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://proceedings.aip.org/about/rights_permissions

estimated by normalizing electron impact single

ionization cross sections to photoionization ratios at
low photon energies where the TS-1 mechanism is
expected to dominate [12]. This is done and shown by
the dashed curve. The TS-1 process reaches a
maximum when the velocity of the first ejected
electron matches the orbital velocity of the second
electron which for the 2p and 2s electrons of Ne is at
116.02 and 141.88 eV, respectively [13].
The ratio of double-to-single ionization for
750 eV positron and electron impact on argon is
shown in Fig. 2 as a function of the projectile energy
loss. These are compared to photoionization data from
ref. 11, the dashed curve. As was shown in ref. 14, the
electron impact and photoionization data agree quite
well while the positron impact ratios are smaller.
Again, the Thomas model (Eq. 2) has been applied,
but now for the L and M shells of argon. The model
describes the electron data quite well but not the
positron data for lower projectile energy losses. From
this comparison, it appears that there is no TS-2
double ionization contribution. However, this would
imply that there should be no differences between
positron and electron impact, which is in conflict with
the experimental data. Further work is needed to
resolve this problem.
L II, III

analysis of the recoil ions in coincidence with forward

scattered, energy analyzed positrons and electrons. For
neon, the importance of the first-order TS-1 and shakeoff double ionization mechanisms is estimated. For
argon, the SO mechanism fits the electron impact data
well but the differences between positron and electron
impact double ionization in the low projectile energyloss part of the spectra where the TS-1 mechanism was
shown to be relevant for neon are not explained.
Possible explanations are different post collision
interactions for positron and electron impact or it may
be associated with the transition from the adiabatic
(TS-1) to the sudden regime (SO) which could imply
different interferences between single- and doubleinteraction mechanisms. Additional information is
required to resolve this.

REFERENCES
1. R. D. DuBois, O. G. de Lucio and A.C. F. Santos,
Positron Impact Differential Ionization Studies, In Radiation
Physics Research Progress, Editor: Aidan N. Camilleri,
pp.105-154, Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (2008).
2. R.D. DuBois, O.G. de Lucio and J. Gavin,
2010. Positron and electron impact double ionization of
argon: How 1st- and 2nd-order mechanisms influence the
differential electron emission, Europhys. Lett. 89 23001.
3. O.G. de Lucio, S. Otranto, R.E. Olson and R.D. DuBois,
2010. Triply Differential Single Ionization of Argon:
Charge Effects for Positron and Electron Impact, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 104, 163201 (2010).
4. R D DuBois, J Gavin and O G de Lucio, 2009. Projectile
Charge Effects in Differential Ionization by Positrons and
Electrons, Application of Accelerators in Research and
Industry, AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol 1099, ed. F D
McDaniel and B L Doyle, p. 847.
5. R.D. DuBois, J. Gavin and O.G. de Lucio, 2009.
Information about TS-1 and TS-2 Double Ionization
Mechanisms for Positron and Electron Impact Ionization of
Argon, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics
Research Section B 267, 358-361.
6. J. Sthr, R, Jaeger, and J.J. Rejr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 821
(1983).
7. T. Darrah Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett 52, 417, (1984).
8. E. P. Kanter, I. Ahmad, R. W. Dunford, D. S. Gemmell,
B. Krssing, S. H. Southworth, and L. Young, Phys. Rev. A
73, 022708 (2006) .
9. J. H. McGuire, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1153-7 (1982)
10. T. D. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 417 (1984).
11.
M. J. Van der Wiel and G. Wiebes, Physica
(Amsterdam) 54, 411, (1971).
12. J.A. R. Samson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2861 (1990).
13. M. E. Rudd, Y. -K. Kim, D. H. Madison, and T. J. Gay,
Rev. Mod. Phys. 64, 441 (1992).
14. A. C. F. Santos, A. Hasan, and R. D. DuBois, Phys. Rev.
A 71, 034701 (2005).

LI
SO (M +L Shells)

SO (M Shell)
SO (L Shell)
-1

2+

V /V

10

Ar
sudden regime

-2

10

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Energy-Loss(eV)

FIGURE 2. Fraction of double ionization cross sections of

argon as a function of the projectile energy loss. Data are for
750 eV projectiles (positrons/electrons) scattered into
vertical and horizontal angles between 0 and 10 . Closed
circles, electron impact open circles positron impact
crosses, photon impact data from ref. [11] . Full red lines
Thomas model (Eq. 2). The vertical line indicates the
validity of the sudden approximation.

CONCLUSION
The dynamics of double ionization of outer
shell electrons from atoms by positrons and electrons
and their comparison to photoionization has been
investigated for neon and argon by the charge state

443
Downloaded 25 Apr 2013 to 146.164.37.174. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://proceedings.aip.org/about/rights_permissions